To ask the Scottish Government, regarding its role in proposing the scheduling of parliamentary business, how it can help ensure that parliamentary time is used constructively for the remainder of this parliamentary session. (S6O-05031)

The scheduling of parliamentary business is proposed by the Parliamentary Bureau, and it is for Parliament to agree to business motions.

In contributing to scheduling discussions at bureau, ministers take into account committee and plenary capacity, as well as Parliament’s capacity, to support Bills’ progression. As with any final year of a session of Parliament, the period leading up to dissolution will be extremely busy, and there is a responsibility on all MSPs in all parties to ensure that we make the most effective use of that time.

For my part, I am happy to commit to working constructively across the chamber to ensure that we can make progress with all legislation that the Parliament has to consider. However, once the Scottish Government or a member introduces a bill, its timetable is for the Parliament to determine.

The Minister will be aware that it has taken 53 months to get through more than 40 Bills, yet Holyrood is now expected to get through more than 20 bills in just six months. If we want good, well-scrutinised legislation through a process that offers Opposition members and back benchers as well as Government members the time to debate it, that needs to be planned well in advance. It cannot come at the expense in particular of MSPs with young families and caring responsibilities, because that goes against the premise that the Parliament was to be family friendly.

Does the minister accept that he will need to relook at the matter and see whether bills will be able to progress all the way to stage 3? Alternatively, is it the case that MSPs will be sitting late into the night, which might not produce legislation that will be beneficial for the people of Scotland?

There is a lot in that, so—with your indulgence, Presiding Officer—I will take a bit of time to cover it all, because Meghan Gallacher posed an important question.

Our data suggest that there are no more Bills or Scottish statutory instruments before Parliament than is normal at this point in a parliamentary session. We believe that committees are taking a little bit longer to scrutinise bills than in previous sessions, which has seen bill timetables slip across the session. There has also been an increase in the number of amendments being lodged by MSPs, which impacts the time that is required at stages 2 and 3. Lastly, some members’ bills before Parliament are more complex and lengthy than has been the case in previous sessions, and that increases the time that is required for Parliament to scrutinise the detail.

I absolutely understand the frustration of members when business runs late on a regular or semi-regular basis, especially when it occurs at relatively short notice and has an impact on childcare, travel and the need to stay over.

The Parliamentary Bureau is very much alive to that, and I offer Meghan Gallacher the assurance that I and other business managers are doing all that we can to minimise the impacts. It is, however, very difficult to do that at times when there are large bills that attract huge numbers of amendments at stage 3, which—more often than not—are pressed to a vote.

The upcoming stage 3 proceedings on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill are a case in point, as there are almost 400 amendments to be considered—in that instance, we have been able to give members advance notice. As I said, I offer the member an assurance that, where business managers can mitigate the impacts, they are seeking to do so.

The complexity of the timetable is driven by the complexity of legislation. The Minister indicated that there is not a substantial difference in comparison with previous sessions. However, if we look at stage 2 proceedings, we see that there is a substantial difference in the time that the process is taking.

Will the minister reconfirm the Government’s commitment to work with all members across the chamber at all stages of a bill to ensure that we can seek agreement early where it is available or identify where the differences actually lie?

I absolutely give that commitment. I cannot guarantee that the outcome of such discussions will satisfy the member’s concern, but we have already seen many instances in which agreement on a way forward can be reached. If we are to manage the amending stages better and avoid scenarios such as Meghan Gallacher highlighted, it is absolutely imperative that members and the Government engage as early as possible and, hopefully, reach a satisfactory conclusion.